4 ms·

This article is awfully thin. It doesn't give any argument whatsoever for why software patents are not a good thing. Here's a summary: 1. Google, Microsoft, Ap

This article is awfully thin. It doesn't give any argument whatsoever for why software patents are not a good thing. Here's a summary: 1. Google, Microsoft, Apple, RIM, and Sony are willing to pay a lot of money for a bundle of patents, including both software and hardware. 2. Therefore, software patents are evil and a tax on innovation, rabble rabble rabble. It's not much of a syllogism.

Produce 15y ago
I think that the argument for why software patents are dangerous is the $4.5 billion figure. If companies are shitting their pants to this extent then clearly the patents have a huge impact on business from their perspective.
- padrack 15y ago
  Exactly. The price is well above expert estimates. While these tech giants can afford that extra cost, the same tension is playing out for smaller startups that cannot.
- larrik 15y ago
  But if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? I wouldn't (necessarily). I have to agree with the parent comment.
  - Produce 15y ago
    >if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? Without going too deep into a philosophical discussion, I think that the competitive nature of our society is hindering progress more than anything else. When people learn to build social structures based on cooperation (I consider a small group of people cooperating to compete against everyone else to be too small in scope), we will see progress increase by orders of magnitude. Just look at the advantage the limited type of cooperation we have now has given us over animals which do not cooperate at all. Now scale that up to the next level (open source is a live example of this, in fact). In concrete terms, imagine if, just as individuals in a company cooperate, companies cooperated with each other. Everyone would be better off. At it's root, this is the difference between seeing life as a non-zero-sum game as opposed to a zero-sum one.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      Exactly. Look at all the productivity increases that the USSR saw. No bread lines there. Nope.
      - Produce 15y ago
        Again, you are missing the point. Imagine if the USSR and the US cooperated and spent all that money they used to make their dicks look bigger on, for example, flying to mars.
    - cube13 15y ago
      >In concrete terms, imagine if, just as individuals in a company cooperate, companies cooperated with each other. Everyone would be better off. At it's root, this is the difference between seeing life as a non-zero-sum game as opposed to a zero-sum one. So... it's exactly what MS, Apple, RIM, etc. did. They cooperated, combined their resources, and outbid Google for the pool. There's no indication that these patents aren't going to be used. Since RIM is in the group, it seems that the hardware patents are definitely going to be used, and who knows what Apple and MS want from the pot. I still don't see how this is an argument specifically against software patents.
      - Produce 15y ago
        Imagine if MS, Apple, RIM AND Google all cooperated and said "this is silly, let's get rid of all our nukes (patents) and live in peace". Collectively, they would be $4.5 billion better off and could use it to build something instead of stocking up on weapons.
inkaudio 15y ago
The argument is simple, not thin. Instead of spending billions on new R&D, new innovation, these companies have to spend money on the shenanigans of the current software patent system.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  The money spent on these patents creates a market for innovation by monetizing patents. If Google et al. thought these patents were invalid, obvious extensions of the prior art, would they be willing to spend this much money?
  - jbooth 15y ago
    No, it creates a market for filing patents by monetizing patents. Innovation means coming up with an idea, implementing it, and bringing it to market in a way that's cost-sustainable. Filing a patent just requires a lawyer. The evidence that things are broken is that a bunch of otherwise productive companies just paid a boatload of money for a grab-bag of IP, primarily to immunize themselves from lawsuits from companies with less productive revenue sources.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      There are plenty of instances where someone comes up with a good idea, and the only way he is able to monetize it is through patent protection.
      - sorbus 15y ago
        If the only way you can make money off of a good idea is by suing other people who are using it, then it's not a good idea.
        monochromatic 15y ago
        My point is that patents give inventors a way to cash out early without having to go to litigation. It's this property right that they can sell to someone else who wants the use of the idea. Maybe the buyer wants to make money off lawsuits, maybe he wants to produce the product. Doesn't matter. The patent lets the inventor sell his idea to someone who can make better (more economically efficient) use of it.

Produce 15y ago

I think that the argument for why software patents are dangerous is the $4.5 billion figure. If companies are shitting their pants to this extent then clearly the patents have a huge impact on business from their perspective.

padrack 15y ago
Exactly. The price is well above expert estimates. While these tech giants can afford that extra cost, the same tension is playing out for smaller startups that cannot.
larrik 15y ago
But if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? I wouldn't (necessarily). I have to agree with the parent comment.
- Produce 15y ago
  >if these patents were say, automotive in nature, and a coalition of automotive companies bought them for 4.5 billion, would we immediately jump to the conclusion that automotive patents are bad? Without going too deep into a philosophical discussion, I think that the competitive nature of our society is hindering progress more than anything else. When people learn to build social structures based on cooperation (I consider a small group of people cooperating to compete against everyone else to be too small in scope), we will see progress increase by orders of magnitude. Just look at the advantage the limited type of cooperation we have now has given us over animals which do not cooperate at all. Now scale that up to the next level (open source is a live example of this, in fact). In concrete terms, imagine if, just as individuals in a company cooperate, companies cooperated with each other. Everyone would be better off. At it's root, this is the difference between seeing life as a non-zero-sum game as opposed to a zero-sum one.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    Exactly. Look at all the productivity increases that the USSR saw. No bread lines there. Nope.
    - Produce 15y ago
      Again, you are missing the point. Imagine if the USSR and the US cooperated and spent all that money they used to make their dicks look bigger on, for example, flying to mars.
  - cube13 15y ago
    >In concrete terms, imagine if, just as individuals in a company cooperate, companies cooperated with each other. Everyone would be better off. At it's root, this is the difference between seeing life as a non-zero-sum game as opposed to a zero-sum one. So... it's exactly what MS, Apple, RIM, etc. did. They cooperated, combined their resources, and outbid Google for the pool. There's no indication that these patents aren't going to be used. Since RIM is in the group, it seems that the hardware patents are definitely going to be used, and who knows what Apple and MS want from the pot. I still don't see how this is an argument specifically against software patents.
    - Produce 15y ago
      Imagine if MS, Apple, RIM AND Google all cooperated and said "this is silly, let's get rid of all our nukes (patents) and live in peace". Collectively, they would be $4.5 billion better off and could use it to build something instead of stocking up on weapons.

inkaudio 15y ago

The argument is simple, not thin. Instead of spending billions on new R&D, new innovation, these companies have to spend money on the shenanigans of the current software patent system.

monochromatic 15y ago
The money spent on these patents creates a market for innovation by monetizing patents. If Google et al. thought these patents were invalid, obvious extensions of the prior art, would they be willing to spend this much money?
- jbooth 15y ago
  No, it creates a market for filing patents by monetizing patents. Innovation means coming up with an idea, implementing it, and bringing it to market in a way that's cost-sustainable. Filing a patent just requires a lawyer. The evidence that things are broken is that a bunch of otherwise productive companies just paid a boatload of money for a grab-bag of IP, primarily to immunize themselves from lawsuits from companies with less productive revenue sources.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    There are plenty of instances where someone comes up with a good idea, and the only way he is able to monetize it is through patent protection.
    - sorbus 15y ago
      If the only way you can make money off of a good idea is by suing other people who are using it, then it's not a good idea.
      - monochromatic 15y ago
        My point is that patents give inventors a way to cash out early without having to go to litigation. It's this property right that they can sell to someone else who wants the use of the idea. Maybe the buyer wants to make money off lawsuits, maybe he wants to produce the product. Doesn't matter. The patent lets the inventor sell his idea to someone who can make better (more economically efficient) use of it.